Shadi Al Tarboush v Yusuf Cassam
[2024] EWHC 639 (KB)
Rainer Hughes Solicitors v Liverpool Victoria Insurance Company Limited & Ors
15 March 2024
[2024] EWHC 585 (KB)
High Court
A solicitor failed to provide a witness statement in their client's native language, causing the case to be thrown out. A judge ordered the solicitor to pay for the wasted costs, and a higher court agreed. The higher court said that while the cost of fixing the error was high, the solicitor's fault was clear, and they had acted unreasonably.
Key Facts
- •Rainer Hughes Solicitors (Appellant) appealed a wasted costs order against them.
- •The original case involved a road traffic accident where liability was initially admitted but later disputed.
- •The Claimant, Mrs. Karadag, changed solicitors to Rainer Hughes.
- •Rainer Hughes filed a witness statement for Mrs. Karadag in English, despite her being primarily Turkish-speaking.
- •The statement contained errors and lacked a Turkish translation.
- •The original claim was struck out due to language issues and non-payment of fees.
- •The judge found Rainer Hughes negligent for not ensuring the statement was in Mrs. Karadag's 'own language' and awarded wasted costs.
- •Rainer Hughes appealed, arguing procedural and substantive errors by the judge.
Legal Principles
Wasted costs orders are governed by section 51(6) and (7) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, CPR 46.8, and Practice Direction 46.
Senior Courts Act 1981, CPR 46.8, Practice Direction 46
The principles for wasted costs applications are derived from cases like *Ridehalgh v Horsefield* and *Lady Archer v Williams*. The three-stage *Ridehalgh* test must be met.
*Ridehalgh v Horsefield* [1994] Ch 205 CA, *Lady Archer v Williams* [2003] EWHC 3048
Witness statements must be in the witness's 'own language', but this doesn't necessarily mean their first language if they're sufficiently fluent in English.
*Afzal v UK Insurance Ltd* [2023] EWHC 1730
A court has discretion to refuse a wasted costs application if it's disproportionate.
*Harrison v Harrison* [2009] EWHC 428 (QB)
Indemnity costs may be awarded where solicitor conduct goes beyond mere negligence.
*Three Rivers District Council v Bank of England* [2006] EWHC 816 (COM)
The overriding objective in CPR 1 requires compliance with rules, practice directions, and orders.
CPR 1
Outcomes
The appeal was dismissed.
The judge did not err procedurally or substantively. The evidence supported a finding of negligence by Rainer Hughes in failing to ensure the witness statement was in Mrs. Karadag's 'own language', leading to wasted costs. The proportionality argument was considered and rejected; the costs were deemed not disproportionate given Rainer Hughes' conduct.
Wasted costs order against Rainer Hughes upheld.
Rainer Hughes' negligence in failing to provide a witness statement in Mrs. Karadag's 'own language' (Turkish) caused the claim's failure and subsequent wasted costs. Their defense was deemed unreasonable and further increased costs.
Indemnity costs awarded to the First Respondent.
Rainer Hughes' unreasonable conduct in defending the application justified indemnity costs.
Similar Cases
Kirsty Williams-Henry v Associated British Ports & Anor (Wasted Costs Order Judgment)
[2024] EWHC 2415 (KB)
Vitalijus Dziugys v Ersan and Co Solicitors Ltd
[2024] EWHC 434 (KB)
Miah Ibar Lone v Michael Andreas Petrou
[2024] EWHC 153 (KB)
Philip John Mainwaring v Susan Claire Bailey (Costs)
[2024] EWHC 2614 (Fam)